Could Immigration, or the US Constitution, Survive a Trump Presidency? Roger Algase

This is not a political site. It does not, and will not, endorse any specific candidate of president or any other public office. Nor is this site concerned with personalities. It is not interested in the day-to-day back and forth of political combat and insults, or of real or alleged scandals, old or new.

This site is interested in only one thing: the laws, regulations, decisions, programs and policies, past, present or proposed, affecting immigration. Up to now, the basic structure of America's immigration system has been more or less the same for the past fifty years, ever since the immigration reform of 1965 abolished the infamous "national origins" quotas of the 1924 Immigration Act and related laws which effectively barred immigrants from most parts of the world other than Northern Europe.

It has been taken for granted during this time that, at least in principle, immigrants from any part of the world who have the ability to contribute to our society and are willing to abide by our laws will have a fair opportunity to build a life in America and, eventually, to become Americans themselves regardless of race, skin color or religion; and that their American-born children will have the right to US citizenship from birth.

It has also been a fundamental part of America's heritage and values, that diversity and tolerance of difference - of race, religion and opinion have been at the heart of our freedom and our strength.

Now, on the night of Tuesday, May 3, as I write these words, the role of immigration in our society may be about to change. A candidate of one of our two major parties has just effectively won that party's nomination for president, and will now, in all likelihood, be running against a candidate of the other party who is under a serious ongoing criminal investigation and, arguably, has at least some chance of winding up in jail instead of the White House.

Again, this site has no position or interest in the personal or political histories of these two candidates, both of whom are controversial and can arouse passionate likes and dislikes among the public. I am only interested in what a presidency of each candidate would mean for immigration and our democracy, based on their stated proposals.

In the case of one of the candidates, election to the presidency would most likely mean continuation of the status quo for immigration, with all the good and bad that this implies. The same would most likely be the case for our democracy, with all its virtues and imperfections.

The same cannot be said for the other candidate. As will be detailed in future posts, based in this candidate's stated and published proposals - personality or style entirely aside - there could be major changes in immigration if this candidate, who has virtually locked up his party's nomination this evening, becomes president. Our entire immigration system as we know it could disappear. So could many of the most fundamental guarantees of our constitution, which protects the rights of Americans even more than those of immigrants.

One also has to ask this candidate's use of the all too familiar strategy of the Big Lie in his relentless assaults on immigrants and minority immigrant communities could lead to the destruction of our entire democratic system, as happened in Europe during the first half of the 20th century.

See a March 11 article by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich (who, among other things, used to be in charge of the implementing the same foreign worker labor certification system that this candidate, who has an excellent chance of becoming our next president because of the above legal difficulties and other real and perceived weaknesses of his most likely opponent, now wants to abolish).

Details will follow in future posts. For now, it is enough to say that for anyone who cares about immigration in the US, and our constitutional freedoms, this night could turn out to be a very sad one - and not only sad, but dangerous for the future of America and the world.
-----------------------------------------------
Roger Algase is a New York lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from many different parts of the world obtain work visas and green cards.

Roger believes that prejudice and discrimination against immigrants or any other groups of people on the basis of race, religion or national origin put the rights of all Americans at risk and endangers the foundations of our democracy. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com

Comments

Unregistered222
-
05-03-2016 09:56 PM

Roger, my man, you're right on the spot! I guess you will be saying "president Donald" for the next 8 years By the way, I hope Obama keeps shoving these fake mozlem "refugees" down the throats of overstretched US taxpayers. Each fake "refugee" == 1000s votes for Trump in general election! Good job! Excellent day today!

Unregistered222
-
05-03-2016 10:33 PM

By the way, I really hope illegal aliens do not stop behaving like they behaved in CA during last Trump rallies. This violent behavior of third-world garbage, who promise to "hack people with machetes once Trump is elected" and "Make America Mexico" just produced Trump probably 100s of 1000s of votes keep doing the good job.

Once Trump is elected he will surely gets a good advice from Emperor Putin on how to deal with this kind of behavior

Marcel Lecomte
-
05-03-2016 11:31 PM

Fact about reality-show entertainer (and buffoon) Donald Trump:At this point he's only the presumptive nominee for the Republican party, thus he is NOT the official candidate representing that institution.

Trump will definitively have to govern by decree, meaning issuing Executive Orders (and not Administrative Actions as currently done by the Obama administration) if he pretends to implement radical changes to the immigration system in America since Congress won't be a help at all.

Any Executive Order resembling EO 9066 this Mussolini-wanna-be may intent to sign will have to be carefully studied, considering that the Untied States of America is NOT longer the country that used to be during the WWII era, ethnically speaking (European-Americans were the majority at that time). It is a fact that today Mexican-Americans and Mexican nationals (lawful residents and undocumented persons) ARE THE MAJORITY in many states: CA, AZ, NV, NM, TX, OR, WA, UT and CO, surpassing easily the 60 million mark.

Any presidential decree detrimental to Mexican nationals will surely have serious repercussions and devastating consequences in America. Last week the world witnessed how enraged Mexican-Americans and Mexican nationals protested the presence of Donald Trump in California (and Law Enforcement was powerless to contain those angry protesters). As stated before, neither Law Enforcement or the military are prepared to cope with higher levels of social unrest.

Moreover, since the United States of America is currently in a State of War (Public Law 107-40), reenacting an upgraded version of Executive Order 9066 may also be subject to the Youngstown test (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579):
1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, the President?s authority is at its greatest.
2. When the President acts in the absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority. When this is the case, the test depends on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.
3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, the authority of the President is at its lowest.

The core issue here is not Doanld Trump per se, instead ILW Blog should dedicate more time analyzing those imbeciles who blindly sympathize with Trump's immigration policies and expose the individuals and institutions pulling strings behind the scenes of Trump campaign (advisers and financiers, since the reality-show entertainer limits himself to recite a script written by these people).

Consequently, too early to see what this buffoon has really in mind in regards to immigration; this blog should also

Nolan Rappaport
-
05-04-2016 01:39 PM

My articles on what Trump would be able to do if he were to be elected have taken on new importance, so I will provide links to them.

If he is elected to the presidency, Donald Trump will have statutory authority to suspend the entry of all Muslim aliens (April 20, 3016), http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0420-Rappaport.pdf

President Obama?s use of executive discretion could have unintended consequences if Donald Trump becomes our next president, (March 7, 2016), http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0307-Rappaport.pdf

This one might be interesting at this point too, Immigration positions of Republican presidential hopefuls, with comments (August 13, 2015), http://discuss.ilw.com/content.php?4869-Article-Immigration- positions-of-Republican-presidential-hopefuls-with-comments-By-Nolan- Rappaport

On the other hand, all is not beyond reproach with Hillary's immigration positions either. See, Should deportations be restricted to deportable aliens who have criminal records? (March 17, 2016), http://www.ilw.com/articles/2016,0317-Rappaport.pdf

In any case, my position has not changed. I see cooperation between the parties as the only path to achieving comprehensive immigration reform, and I think we are more likely to get that cooperation if Trump is the president. He prides himself on being The Greatest Deal Maker of All Times (my interpretation of what he has said). It's a virtual certainty that he would see immigration reform as an opportunity to demonstrate his negotiating prowess, and I think he would succeed in bringing the two parties together. He revealed his negotiating strategy when asked about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He doesn't concern himself with which side is right and which is wrong. He finds common ground and works out a deal that meets the needs of both sides even if it doesn't please either side, and that is what is called for to put together an immigration reform bill would succeed in moving through the legislative process in congress and being enacted.

With regard to Nolan's comment, the question is whether a President Trump would turn out to be Donald the Deal Maker or Donald the Demagogue and Dictator. I hope that America will never have to find out the answer.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Nolan Rappaport
-
05-04-2016 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs

With regard to Nolan's comment, the question is whether a President Trump would turn out to be Donald the Deal Maker or Donald the Demagogue and Dictator. I hope that America will never have to find out the answer.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law

Trump might turn out to be "Donald the Demagogue and Dictator." I don't know. But even if he does, that won't stop him from feeding his ego with success at making deals that no one else was able to make. He probably is better at making deals between antagonistic opponents than Hillary is. He is a successful businessman. Making deals is an essential skill in business matters. Actually, it is in politics too, but the reality is that it is sadly lacking among our politicians. It has been more than 30 years now since the enactment of IRCA, the last comprehensive immigration reform bill. That has to be a challenge to the Donald. I stand by my prediction that he will take up that challenge and probably will succeed.

Nate Silver in FiveThirtyEight puts it more politely, indeed much too politely, when he says:
"...Trump's main differentiation was doubling down on cultural grievance: grievances against immigrants, against Muslims, against political correctness, against the media, and sometimes against black people and women. And the strategy worked."

I would ask Nate: who is being politically correct here? Since when is prejudice against immigrants, Muslims, women and African-Americans a "cultural grievance"?

Why is Nate Silver so afraid to call racism, sexism and bigotry by their real names? If political correctness has been anywhere in evidence during this presidential campaign, it has been the the gentle way that the media have treated Donald Trump and his vicious, lying, attacks on immigrants and minority racial and religious groups.

While Trump is certainly no Adolf Hitler and has never advocated mass extermination or genocide, one could ask: were Hitler's attacks on the Jews mere "cultural grievances"?

If future historians write that the media contributed to bringing about a Donald Trump dictatorship in America, the overly deferential, one might say obsequious, attitude of the media towards him will certainly be one of the main reasons.

Lets hope everyone like this information they shared as i do. Really great facts.https://copaamerica.live

Marcel Lecomte
-
05-05-2016 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Nolan Rappaport

He revealed his negotiating strategy when asked about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. He doesn't concern himself with which side is right and which is wrong. He finds common ground and works out a deal that meets the needs of both sides even if it doesn't please either side, and that is what is called for to put together an immigration reform bill would succeed in moving through the legislative process in congress and being enacted.

Do not compare apples to oranges by using such preposterous analogy: either you are an egregious ignorant about the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or your obvious sympathy towards one of belligerent parties drives you to write such incoherencies (just remember that Judaism IS NOT Zionism).

It would be very interesting to see if you have the decency of investigating the people and institutions managing the Trump campaign (advisers and financiers). You may find out that many of them have deep connection with the Zionist regime or if you want to call it, the State of Israel (and the reality-show entertainer limits himself to recite a script written by these entities).

Just in case you may try to associate this response as ?anti-semitic?
Full Definition of Semite
1
a : a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs
b : a descendant of these peoples

Remain in the field of immigration issues, an area in which you are qualified and avoid discussing geopolitical affairs currently occurring in the Middle East if your understanding of the subject is exiguous.

The content you have shared right here very awesome. I enjoy and appreciated your function. I read deeply your own article, the points you have mentioned in the following paragraphs are useful.copaamerica.live